Scientific proof relies on two things: predictability and repeatability – both of which Religion does not embrace. I think it is better for atheists to not discuss about the existence or non-existence of God and concentrate on what religion means to our lives – its implications rather than its tenets.
Attacking only religion’s implications gets only (very) temporary respite. The main response or even only response that religious people give for their actions/practices is of the form “because says so”, with utter disregard for modern values and morality. The only way to attack this is to question their scripture. So atheists have to contend with the existence of God problem.
Even if religion does not embrace scientific principles in its fundamental tenets, there is plenty of bigotry where apologists will invoke science and its achievements if it helps their cause in religion. More importantly, religions do not refrain from making scientifically verifiable claims, like the virgin birth of Christ, his resurrection, the Noah’s Ark story, the Burning Bush in Moses’ story, that a bridge was built to Sri Lanka by Rama and his vanar army, etc, etc. They expect us to believe all this, because they believe in a god.
You are referring to activities like debunking godmen/women, etc. On a political side, we want to keep religion and the state separate. All these are no doubt important, but I would say that it is equally important to emancipate people from belief in an omniscient god. One of the worst problems of religion is that it makes people distrust science and so there is so much blind belief – leading to industries based on such shaky foundations, like astrology, ayurveda, homeopathy, etc. Believing in something, however much it is good for you, simply does not make it true!
Scientific proof relies on two things: predictability and repeatability – both of which Religion does not embrace. I think it is better for atheists to not discuss about the existence or non-existence of God and concentrate on what religion means to our lives – its implications rather than its tenets.
Attacking only religion’s implications gets only (very) temporary respite. The main response or even only response that religious people give for their actions/practices is of the form “because says so”, with utter disregard for modern values and morality. The only way to attack this is to question their scripture. So atheists have to contend with the existence of God problem.
Even if religion does not embrace scientific principles in its fundamental tenets, there is plenty of bigotry where apologists will invoke science and its achievements if it helps their cause in religion. More importantly, religions do not refrain from making scientifically verifiable claims, like the virgin birth of Christ, his resurrection, the Noah’s Ark story, the Burning Bush in Moses’ story, that a bridge was built to Sri Lanka by Rama and his vanar army, etc, etc. They expect us to believe all this, because they believe in a god.
You are referring to activities like debunking godmen/women, etc. On a political side, we want to keep religion and the state separate. All these are no doubt important, but I would say that it is equally important to emancipate people from belief in an omniscient god. One of the worst problems of religion is that it makes people distrust science and so there is so much blind belief – leading to industries based on such shaky foundations, like astrology, ayurveda, homeopathy, etc. Believing in something, however much it is good for you, simply does not make it true!
And have a look at this *serious* look at religion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tsgmuD6eDg